Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 15376
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1946
CRL.A NO. 41 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.12.2016 IN SC NO.630 OF 2011 OF
COURT OF SESSION, THALASSERY
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
ANTONY @ JOSE
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O.JOSEPH, ERTHOTT HOUSE, KELAKAM AMSOM, POOKKUNDU
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
SRI.D.FEROZE
SRI.V.VINAY
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682031 (CRIME NO.246/2008 OF KELAKAM POLICE
STATION,KANNUR DISTRICT)
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI ALEX M THOMBRA, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS
CRIMINAL
APPEAL
HAVING
BEEN
FINALLY
HEARD
ON
26.07.2024,
THE
COURT
ON
THE
SAME
DAY
DELIVERED
THE
FOLLOWING:
“CR”
SRI.S.RAJEEV, SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN, SRI.D.FEROZE, SRI.V.VINAY
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on the accused's intent and knowledge regarding the likelihood of causing death, particularly in cases involving sudden quarrels.
Headnote:
Homicide - Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder - IPC Sections 302, 304, 447 - The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II, emphasizing the lack of premeditation and the nature of the injury inflicted, which was not intended to be fatal. The court highlighted the importance of the accused's knowledge of the likelihood of causing death rather than intent to kill.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was accused of murdering his neighbor following a dispute fueled by allegations of molestation. The incident involved the accused trespassing and fatally stabbing the deceased during a confrontation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution established the presence of the accused at the scene, the fatal injury inflicted, and the motive behind the attack. However, it concluded that the act did not amount to murder due to the lack of intent to kill.
Issues: Whether the accused's actions constituted murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the accused acted without premeditation during a sudden quarrel, inflicting a single stab wound that was likely to cause death but did not demonstrate intent to kill, thus qualifying for a lesser charge.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, convicting the appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentencing him to five years of rigorous imprisonment.
J U D G M E N T
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.
The above appeal has been preferred by the sole accused in S.C.No. 630 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Session, Thalassery. In the above case, the appellant stood indicted for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 447 and 302 of the IPC .
2. Short facts:
Pulikkal Kunjumon @ Thankappan, his wife Smt. Remani, and their two boys, aged 15 and 12 years respectively, were residents of a place called Pookundu within the limits of Kannur District. The appellant was their neighbor. They had a cordial relationship until about a month prior to October 12, 2008, the day on which the fateful incident that led to the death of Thankappan took place. The prosecution alleges that news doing the rounds in the locality reached the appellant, claiming that Thankappan had tried to molest his wife. This created a tremendous amount of ill feelings in the minds of the accused towards Thankappan. The prosecution further alleges that on October 12, 2008, at about 10:45 p.m., the accused trespassed into the front yard of the deceased's house, bearing Door No. II/446 of Kelakam Panchayat. He started abusing Thankappan and exhorted him to come out. Thankappan came out and told the accused that they should settle the issue the next morning and asked him to go back to his house. The accused is alleged to have pulled the deceased out to the tar road lying east-west right outside the house and pushed him down. While the deceased was lying face up, the accused is alleged to have sat on his legs, taken a rubber tapper’s knife from his hip, and inflicted a stab injury on the outer aspect of the left thigh, cutting the femoral vein. Though the injured was rushed to the hospital, he breathed his last.
3. Registration of the crime and investigation:
Thomas (PW1), a neighbour, went to the Police Station on 13.10.2008 at 7.30 a.m. and lodged the FI Statement which was recorded by PW12, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kelakam Police Station. On the same day itself, the Circle Inspector of Police (PW13) took up the investigation. He conducted the inquest (Ext.P10) over the dead body at 10.30 a.m., and on 13.10.2008, he went to the scene of occurrence and prepared scene mahazar (Ext.P4). The accused was arrested at 10.10 p.m. on 13.10.2008. On the basis of the disclosure statement given by the accused, the true extract of which was marked as Ext.P12, the weapon of offence (MO1 - Rubber Tapper’s knife) and the lungi (MO4) and shirt (MO5) worn by the accused were seized. He concluded the investigation and laid the final report before court.
4. Proceedings before the Court:
After complying with the procedure, the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Koothuparamba, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Thalassery. After hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 447 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code . The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.
5. Evidence tendered during trial:
The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 13 to prove its case. Exts.P1 to P18 documents were exhibited and marked. MOs 1 to 5 were produced and identified. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating materials arising out of the prosecution evidence were put to the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against him and maintained his innocence. According to him, he was falsely implicated by the wife and children of the deceased as they felt that their family suffered ignominy owing to the allegations of molesty levelled by the wife of the accused against him. On finding that the accused could not be acquitted under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C., he was called upon to enter upon his defence. No defence of evidence was adduced on his side.
6. Findings of the learned Sessions Judge:
a) The evidence of PWs 2 and 3, the wife and son of the deceased, are natural witnesses and their presence throughout the incident was fou
